A woman who wants to make the world a better place because she was beaten by her father, and who is willing to sacrifice herself to make things better for others is just as stereotypical as someone who wants to do evil things because evil things are cool? Wut? Movie Claudia and game Claudia are nothing alike. One has depth and meaning, and one is just killing people and torturing a child because that's what her religion wants her to do.

But this is the film series--it needs to capture a bigger audience (and we know that's what they were trying to do with Revelation). It'd make for a better Silent Hill-esque film, yes, but not for general audiences.

Well that's the trick isn't it? Getting the surface story smooth enough so the audiences are pleased enough to accept the ambiguous parts. Recently there was Inception which was a success even though the plot is unclear. Meanwhile daily cable tv horror has a lot of "plot holes" where the audience didn't care enough to think about the ambiguities.

I don't think SHR would have been any better simply by witholding information. They should have just conveyed that information better with MJB spent his energy getting a better story together.

But this is the film series--it needs to capture a bigger audience (and we know that's what they were trying to do with Revelation). It'd make for a better Silent Hill-esque film, yes, but not for general audiences.

Well that's the trick isn't it? Getting the surface story smooth enough so the audiences are pleased enough to accept the ambiguous parts. Recently there was Inception which was a success even though the plot is unclear. Meanwhile daily cable tv horror has a lot of "plot holes" where the audience didn't care enough to think about the ambiguities.

I don't think SHR would have been any better simply by witholding information. They should have just conveyed that information better with MJB spent his energy getting a better story together.

Frankly, I found that inception was rather straightforward until the very last shot.I agree it's bad to just withhold information, though.

JKristine35 wrote:

A woman who wants to make the world a better place because she was beaten by her father, and who is willing to sacrifice herself to make things better for others is just as stereotypical as someone who wants to do evil things because evil things are cool? Wut? Movie Claudia and game Claudia are nothing alike. One has depth and meaning, and one is just killing people and torturing a child because that's what her religion wants her to do.

DJ said that they act alike, and frankly, I agree. Don't we only really learn Claudia's backstory through notes in the games? Had I not looked it up afterward, my only real impressions of her from the game would have been that she knew Alessa and was part of a freaky cult.

_________________Beyond the Joystick - game reviews, plot recaps, and morehttp://beyond-the-joystick.blogspot.com - Also on Tumblr!

Carrie-Anne Moss floats around doing her best wicked witch impersonation (to be fair, this character was just as stereotypical in the game)

"Doing an impression". Acting.

To be fair, while Claudia in the games is explained to be multidimensional through notes about her past, her actions appear to be every bit as "I'm a witch! Fear me! I want god!" as in the film, as well.

_________________Beyond the Joystick - game reviews, plot recaps, and morehttp://beyond-the-joystick.blogspot.com - Also on Tumblr!

Carrie-Anne Moss floats around doing her best wicked witch impersonation (to be fair, this character was just as stereotypical in the game)

"Doing an impression". Acting.

To be fair, while Claudia in the games is explained to be multidimensional through notes about her past, her actions appear to be every bit as "I'm a witch! Fear me! I want god!" as in the film, as well.

Even though she wholly admits the fact that she could be suffering for the things she had to do to birth God, yet still continues because she feels it will usher in paradise for the rest of the world? That wasn't in any notes. The two Claudias were nothing alike. Their demeanor is different, motives completely different, and just the personalities (what was shown of either) was different.

_________________WARNING: Some Parts of Reality May Seem Violent or Cruel.

Claudia Wolf does not cackle, send flying monkeys after people, fly on a broom, or do evil things because "LOL EBIL". Claudia states repeatedly throughout the game that she wants to save mankind from suffering, and she also explicitly states that she does not expect to be saved because of her actions to birth the god. Similarly, her history with Leonard is revealed in her conversation with Vincent at the inn, so I don't know where you get the idea that her motivations and entire past are revealed through notes. In fact, there are very few notes dealing with her at all, and none that talk about her motivations or abusive history.

I did phrase Claudia's backstory as a question--I didn't remember the cutscene, but thanks for the correction. I do feel the way she acts (her overdramatic demeanor, constant proselytizing, blind insistence on a single cause) can come off as wicked-witch-esque, though, so my agreement with that point still stands.

_________________Beyond the Joystick - game reviews, plot recaps, and morehttp://beyond-the-joystick.blogspot.com - Also on Tumblr!

Carrie Ann Moss' character and game Claudia are nothing alike. I was completely disappointed to see Moss' potential being wasted so much. Movie Claudia was at the very least a lousy copy of a minimum fraction of how game Claudia appears to be superficially.

And although we mustn't exclude Moss in this story, Bassett had his hands in this as much as everything. Moreover, it's interesting that Moss says in an interview how she's aware that Claudia's character is more than what she appears to be, that she's not just an evil antagonist doing devilries, etc.. And what is more, I think that it is also to blame the film's shortness for discrediting Moss' role and not shedding more light on the essence of Claudia's personality.

We rented two movies, having watched the first rental before Silent Hill Revelation, and after the credits started rolling on Revelation, I looked at my mother and I said, â€œYou know thereâ€˜s something wrong when Abraham Lincoln: Vampire Hunter has a more coherent plot.â€.

I didn't read the hole 27 pages topic so I am sorry if this has been already said but there is somekind of incoherence in the movie. When Heather and Vincent are at the Motel, Vincent says that the Order will be free when Alessa will leave Silent Hill because this is because of her that Silent Hill is in that state.

Later in the movie Heather and Alessa become one person. At the end of the movie, Alessa/Heather/Sharon leaves Silent Hill. So it means that Alessa leaves Silent Hill. So why the city is still hunted and why her father go back into the fog ? If Alessa is gone, the nightmare should end. And more than that, where does all those people come from ? Alessa killed everyone in Silent Hill at the end of the first movie. Why there is so much people now ?

I didn't read the hole 27 pages topic so I am sorry if this has been already said but there is somekind of incoherence in the movie. When Heather and Vincent are at the Motel, Vincent says that the Order will be free when Alessa will leave Silent Hill because this is because of her that Silent Hill is in that state.

Later in the movie Heather and Alessa become one person. At the end of the movie, Alessa/Heather/Sharon leaves Silent Hill. So it means that Alessa leaves Silent Hill. So why the city is still hunted and why her father go back into the fog ? If Alessa is gone, the nightmare should end. And more than that, where does all those people come from ? Alessa killed everyone in Silent Hill at the end of the first movie. Why there is so much people now ?

The fog still being there means that Alessa's left her mark on the town, but it was already mystical, being built on an ancient Indian burial ground. Essentially, while she affected the town, her presence is no longer necessary for the town to function in the ways it does.

As for the people: retconning. The writer/director decided to have people still residing in Silent Hill, despite the first movie's ending.

_________________Beyond the Joystick - game reviews, plot recaps, and morehttp://beyond-the-joystick.blogspot.com - Also on Tumblr!

Silent Hill: Revelation isn't the worst movie that I've ever seen. The first film was fairly good, so that does make the second one seem worse by comparison, but it was only normally bad rather than Postal bad.

The main issue that I had with the movie was that it attempted to work as an adaptation of the third video game, rather than a straight sequel to the first movie. I'm sure that someone else has said that before in this thread, but it bears repeating. The first movie was an adaptation of the first video game, but in the translation to the big screen, it became very different. Some parts were added, while some parts were left out. The motivation of the cult, the goal of the main character, the temporal setting (1970s vs. 2000s), and the ending were all very different.

So, the only way to adapt the third movie to the screen directly was with a horrifying amount of retconing, to the extent that it approaches the level of a voodoo shark. Rather than make a second movie where Christopher da Silva goes back to Silent Hill to look for his wife, or something connected to the plot of the first movie but not necessarily the main characters, they made something nominally linked to the first film, but so confusing that it sounds like fan fiction from someone who liked the video games but hated the first movie with a passion.

The worst victim of that is the character of Sharon da Silva. By the end of the first movie, it was pretty clearly the intention of the director that Sharon and Alessa were rejoined. She spends 90% of the movie being easily frightened by anything connected with Silent Hill (as most people would, quite frankly), then starts behaving calm and collected after seeing something that would give most people (not to mention children) the worst case of PTSD imaginable. She pretty clearly and deliberately snubs her biological mother and goes to be with her adoptive mother. Obviously, what Rose attempts to take home with her is not just her own daughter.

Bam, convenient amnesia. Her mother went back to the town from Ohio for some reason, found half of the seal of Metatron somehow ("Wait, half of the what?" asks everyone who has only ever seen the first movie), and sent her back without any memories because Silent Hill: Revelation really just wanted a blank slate.

The plot was confusing, as well. I know the plot of the video games, so I got it easily. If I hadn't? Not a chance. That's literally the only reason why I was able to enjoy it at all. There were some good points, like the scene where Alessa was walking through the town destroying everything around her. While it doesn't fit the general vibe surrounding her from the first movie, it's still pretty awesome looking for what it is. Still, add a healthy dose of confusion, and even that would fall apart.

Beyond that, there were a few other bad points. Dialogue wasn't horrendous, but it wasn't that great, either. Heather's response to her "hallucinations" is so muted that it makes me wonder how many times that's happened before. Did she constantly hallucinate visions of a young child being shoved around and called a witch, while being told never to go to a place she had never heard of by her father, without asking any questions? She had no memories of her childhood (apparently not even her adoptive childhood), so did she really never wonder whether there might be some connection?

Also, the Pop-Tarts.

Overall, probably 3 or 4 starts out of 10, on a genuine "5 stars is average" scale. Not horrible, but yeah. Not good.

For a non-silent hill fan it would have been incoherent gibberish. To a fan it was also a jumbled mess, fusing elements from SH3 to badly retconned concepts from the first film. But I still liked it, I suppose because I wasn't expecting a straight port from video game to big screen after what they did with the first film, so I just accepted it for what it was.I thought Claudia's character was bland and dull in the game, so having her altered for the film didn't bother me at all.

I thought the actress who played Heather was great, I also liked the visual effects. It had some of the atmosphere of the games, which is what I care about the most, didn't capture it perfectly of course, but some is better than none IMO.

I was so excited for this movie. I thought SH3 could be made in to a great film, if done right. I know when games, books, etc. are made into film there is always changes made. But as long as it stays true enough to the original, it could have been a great movie.

I was soooo disappointed with this movie. Maybe my expectations were too high, but I left the theater shaking my head and telling my friends "Trust me, the games are so much better than this!".